Metroscope: the Metro Residential and Nonresidential Real Estate Models - General Description and Technical Appendix

2 Introduction Metro has developed a regional econometric model (MARIO), a residential real estate model (RELM), a nonresidential real estate model and a transportation model. We have embedded the four models in a GIS based accounting and visualization tool that we call Metroscope. In regard to Metro's model development this paper discusses the reasons that Metro engages in modeling, shows how Metro is presently using the models and provides a few examples of model policy results. We also talk about the resources and time it takes to develop the land use side of an integrated transportation-land use model. Finally, in regard to the residential and nonresidential real estate models the paper includes a technical appendix showing the schematics of the models' operation and detailing the equation structure of the residential and nonresidential models. Metro's interest in integrating transportation and land use modeling began initially in 1992 and was and continues to be stimulated by a growing number of Federal, State and local information and compliance requirements. Beginning in the 1990's with Federal legislation such as ISTEA & TEA-21 along with EPA air quality conformity requirements put an increased emphasis on the land use and associated air quality effects of transportation investment. Significantly, at this time there were successful court challenges of MPO transportation plans in California and Illinois based on failure to account for the land use impacts of planned transportation improvements. This litigation further stressed the need to explicitly represent the relationship between land use and transportation within the framework of a consistent, formal simulation model. Likewise at the State or Oregon and local level new planning requirements demanded information that ultimately must be determined by integrated transportation – land use models. Foremost among these requirements was adoption of the State Transportation Planning Rule that stipulates a 20% reduction in per capita VMT over a 20-year period. Adopted during a time period of 3 – 5 % per year increases in per capita VMT such a rule certainly challenged policy credulity and the analytical tools capable of evaluating how such a policy might be implemented within the context of a non-Stalinist system of government. Of equal importance at the State level was the maturation of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) requirements particularly in the Metro Region. Throughout the 1980's the UGB amounted to a set of oversized new clothes relative to the growth needs of the region. Only in …